Stress myocardial perfusion imaging versus echocardiography for the diagnosis and risk stratification of patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease

Stress perfusion imaging and stress echocardiography (ECHO) are both very useful for assessment of diagnosis and risk stratification of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Both techniques have been well validated during exercise and inotropic stress, but coronary vasodilation stress is better used in combination with perfusion imaging. The overall sensitivity for detection of CAD is slightly higher by single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) than by two-dimensional (2D) ECHO during all stress modalities, whereas the specificity is slightly higher by ECHO, although the differences in general are not statistically significant. SPECT, however, appears to be superior to ECHO in the diagnosis of isolated circumflex stenosis, as well as for the correct identification of multivessel CAD. A substantially greater amount of information is available regarding risk stratification with SPECT than with 2D ECHO. Although the data suggest that both techniques are very useful for risk stratification of patients with stable CAD, after myocardial infarction, and for preoperative risk stratification, the risk for cardiac events is lower in the presence of a normal stress SPECT study than of a normal stress ECHO.